Her lawyer, Stephen Victor, last week filed an amended statement of claim, seeking $2.25 million in damages from Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton and his law firm, Cassels Brock, and $1.75 million in damages from Heritage Minister Shelly Glover.

She alleges that Hamilton breached his solicitor-client relationship with her and that Glover defamed her. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Guergis has repeatedly kept her case alive in the face of a series of setbacks since she launched her suit in December 2011. She is seeking redress for her removal from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet and the Conservative caucus, and the loss of her seat in the Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey, which she unsuccessfully tried to hold as an independent in the federal election of May 2011.

Helena Guergis holds back her emotions at her campaign office in Collingwood, Ont., April 15, 2011. (Darren Calabrese/The Canadian Press)

At first, the lawsuit named Hamilton, his firm, Glover, as well as Harper, his aide Ray Novak, former chief of staff Guy Giorno, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, her aide Axelle Pellerin, the Conservative party and private investigator Derrick Snowdy.

Guergis alleged that they defamed her by spreading false allegations about her and her husband, former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, including suggestions that she had consorted with prostitutes and fraudsters and consumed cocaine. The RCMP ultimately cleared her of wrongdoing.

In August 2012, Judge Charles Hackland tossed out her suit, ruling that Harper and the party had every legal right to kick her out of cabinet and the party. She appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which ruled in June 2013 that her suit was an abuse of process, and ordered her to pay $33,000 in costs.

In February 2013, Hackland ruled that Guergis would have to pay $118,560 in costs to the defendants. Lawyers for the Tories went to court asking him to block her from pursuing her claim until she had paid up.

Now a law student in Edmonton, Guergis said she could only afford to pay $30 a month. Lawyers for the Conservatives dryly noted that at that rate it would take her 347 years to pay off her debts, but Hackland ruled that Guergis could proceed with her suit, saying it would not be “in the interests of justice, especially in a matter of public interest,” to dismiss her case.

On June 20, her lawyer filed the latest claim, which is narrower than her original claim.

The statement of claim says Guergis went to Hamilton when the Toronto Star was preparing stories alleging connections between Guergis and Jaffer to cocaine, prostitutes and fraudsters.

“Hamilton said he would be ‘pleased’ to act for the plaintiff, indicating that he had acted for a number of members of ‘the caucus’ in the past,” says the statement of claim.

The suit alleges that Hamilton violated solicitor-client privilege he owed to Guergis, breaching his duties under the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Hamilton “drew unwarranted or unsupported conclusions about her,” and took actions that led to the end of her political career, the suit alleges.

Paul H. Le Vay, lawyer for Hamilton and Cassels Brock, said in an email that “my clients’ position is that it is without merit and that they will continue to vigorously defend the matter.”

In an email to Victor on Wednesday, Le Vay went further, stating that “in our view, your new pleading does not comply with Justice Hackland’s ruling in several ways.”

The suit also alleges that Glover defamed Guergis in an appearance on a CTV panel on May 16, 2010, when she said, “I can assure you there is far more to come out,” about Guergis.

Robert Staley, who is representing Glover, said in an email Thursday that the minister will defend herself in court. “The amended statement of claim repeats allegations against Minister Glover that were first made in December 2011. The minister continues to deny the allegations made against her, and will continue to defend herself in court.”

In an email to Victor on Thursday, Staley says the amended claim “makes allegations of defamation that have already been conclusively determined against your client,” and writes that the “pleading as amended is fundamentally defective.”

Victor declined to comment.

The lawyers are scheduled to appear before Hackland in Ottawa on July 2.

In Ottawa, Judge Charles Hackland rejected an argument from Glover’s lawyer, Robert Staley, who is also the lawyer for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that Guergis’s case be put on hold until she has paid costs from a related lawsuit.

Harper fired Guergis as minister for status of women and kicked her out of the Conservative Party in April 2010 after Snowdy brought allegations of criminal conduct, linking Guergis and her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, with fraudsters, prostitutes and cocaine users in what became known as the “busty hookers” scandal.

Guergis was cleared by the RCMP. She ran unsuccessfully as an independent in Simcoe-Grey in 2011 and is now studying law in Edmonton.

Hackland threw out Guergis’s lawsuit against Harper and other Conservatives in 2012, ruling that he did not have jurisdiction over decisions about who should be in cabinet or in a political caucus. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the suit was an abuse of process, blocking further legal action against most defendants.

Last summer, Guergis filed an amended statement of claim — against Snowdy, Hamilton, the lawyer who handled the file for Harper, his firm, Cassels Brock, and Glover, who said in a 2010 CTV interview that “there is far more to come out” about Guergis.

Staley argued Thursday that the case should be stayed until Guergis pays $124,960 in costs awarded against the defendants.

In October, Guergis’s lawyer, Stephen Victor, emailed Staley saying that “she can only afford to pay $30 a month on account of the costs awards.”

That payment will not cover the interest on the costs, Staley said, pointing out it will take 347 years to pay the outstanding costs.

“Her evidence is that it doesn’t matter how much time you give her,” he said. “She is telling you she doesn’t have the capacity to pay.”

Before he finished his argument, though, Hackland said he would let Guergis go ahead.

“I just think it is not in the interests of justice, especially in a matter of public interest, which this is, to summarily stay or dismiss an action in the current circumstances,” he said.

The case law cited by Staley refers to cases being thrown out when the plaintiff had flouted the law, said Victor, which is not the case here.

“It is absolutely clear and unchallenged that she’s impecunious, and she tells you she intends to pay,” he said.

Outside the court, Victor said he was happy with the judge’s decision.

“This is a good day for Ms. Guergis,” he said.

Staley did not comment.

The next step is likely to be a motion from Hamilton, who is expected to argue that Guergis’s suit against him be dismissed.

In her amended statement of claim, Guergis says that during the days before she was fired by Harper, she disclosed confidential information to Hamilton because she believed they had a lawyer-client relationship.

According to Guergis’s unproven claims, Snowdy and Hamilton falsely stated that a video existed of her snorting cocaine from the breast of a prostitute.

Most of the defendants in the case are “indemnified” by the Crown, since they ended up facing legal jeopardy in the course of their duties. Instead of having justice department lawyers represent them, Harper and his aides have employed Staley, billing the taxpayers.

The government won’t say what rate Staley is charging, citing solicitor-client privilege, but he is a top Bay Street litigator with Bennett Jones, and competitors say he likely bills in the $900-an-hour range.

The government doesn’t regularly report details of what it spends on outside legal help, but in response to an order paper question from Liberal MP John McCallum, the Privy Council Office reported that taxpayers had paid $62,000 for legal assistance for fiscal 2012-13 for Harper, and others in connection with Guergis legal matters.

http://o.canada.com/news/judge-rejects-attempt-to-shut-down-helena-guergis-lawsuit/feed1guergisstphnmaherMayor Rob Ford’s rule to continue as adversary won’t fight quest for stay of verdicthttp://o.canada.com/news/national/161638
http://o.canada.com/news/national/161638#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2012 19:38:26 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=161638]]>Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is likely to remain as Toronto’s top politician until well into 2013.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby, and Paul Magder, who successfully nailed the mayor with the conflict of interest charge won’t fight Ford’s bid for a stay of the ruling – pending an appeal, the Globe reported. The application for a delay in enforcing Ford’s eviction after 14 days as Justice Charles Hackland ruled is still set to be heard on Wednesday.

That means we can all have a Merry Christmas take a breather while Alan Lenczner puts together his appeal of Hackland’s ruling.

While Lenczner will still go to court to apply for the stay, it was likely going to be granted even if Ruby put up a fight, according to many in the legal community.

Of course, Ruby couldn’t just roll over without a jab: “We are agreeing to this stay to give the city of Toronto a measure of stability, something that has been wholly absent during Mr. Ford’s term in office,” Mr. Ruby said in a release. “Our opposition to Mr. Ford’s appeal, however, will proceed.”

Now it’s off to an appeal to the Divisional Court – Ford’s last stand to keep his job. It will take some time for the appeal to be put together, a date to be set, a hearing to happen, and a ruling from the court. So that should ensure Ford remains Toronto’s mayor for a few months.

If Ford loses his appeal, he’ll be out of office, and council will have 60 days to decide what to do next – and that could be a byelection or appointing someone to be mayhor with Ford out.

Ford has already said he’ll be the first to register if there is a byelection, now that Hackland has clarified his ruling and determined Ford can run immediately and not have to wait until the 2014 election.

– Files from The Canadian Press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/161638/feed0Ford feels heatrgranatsteinToronto Mayor Rob Ford can run in a byelection – but don’t let it happenhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/rob-ford-can-run-in-a-byelection-but-should-we-have-one
http://o.canada.com/news/national/rob-ford-can-run-in-a-byelection-but-should-we-have-one#commentsFri, 30 Nov 2012 15:45:48 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=160359]]>Game on! With news that Justice Charles Hackland has clarified his ruling and will allow Mayor Rob Ford to run in a byelection for his job if one is called, the political game-playing is about to hit a new extreme at City Hall.

Already, we’ve seen Ford supporters jump ship, and advise the mayor to take a break. We’ve seen Doug Ford, the other half of the FoBro duo, vehemently insist Rob will run again and will win again.

You can be sure you have the Rob Ford detractors on council – and there are a lot of them – readying a game plan.

Ford’s game plan is already underway with a video and slogan: Respect Democracy.

And you have the fiscal hawks – and many Torontonians – saying, why should we spend $7 million on a byelection?

So, what should happen? Well, there are many factors at play. Let’s run through a few of them.

There is Ford’s appeal – starting with his application for a stay of the current judgment. While Justice Hackland said Ford will be evicted from office in 14 days for his conflict of interest, Ford’s team will be appealing that verdict. Before appealing, they will go before the courts on Dec. 5 asking for a delay in the mayor’s ouster.

Then they will get to the appeal. Which may take a few months – or longer, depending on how quickly court can find time, the lawyers can be ready and then the amount of time it takes for the Divisional Court to make a ruling.

We are at the halfway point of Ford’s term in office right now. The next election is Oct. 27, 2014. So if the courts don’t get through this until late spring, then you’re looking at council having 60 days to decide whether to hold a byelection or not, then calling a byelection, the campaign period, then a vote. We’re talking mid-summer at the earliest, I’d propose, to have a new (or the just evicted) mayor in place.

With a byelection we’re talking mid-summer at the earliest to have a new (or the just evicted) mayor in place.

So, let’s say that’s June 2013. Now, keep in mind the election campaign for 2014 will launch in earnest in early 2014. So a victor in a byelection will have just a few months of “running the city” and I put that in quotes on purpose, before heading headlong into another campaign.

Councillors, as you might expect in a highly charged political environment, seem to be leaning toward the byelection.

Who would it be? Will it be someone that backs the Ford agenda? Will the progressives try a power play to put in someone whose mantra isn’t “respect for taxpayers”? Will the political opportunists come flying out of the rotunda? Could someone from outside of council be drafted into that position?

While Toronto councillors say they are getting work done and moving the agenda forward, we’d be more likely to see flying muck than anything else.

And everyone from the Fords to those who believe it is undemocratic will scream bloody murder that Rob Ford is being “banned” from running for the job he rightfully and fairly won in 2010, and lost because of the minimum sentence for a very minor crime was expulsion. Judge over voters is a tough sell.

Of course, Ford could also win his appeal and retain power.

My preference would be to see a Ford supporter, like a Doug Holyday, be appointed mayor, let Rob Ford cool his heels (especially as his campaign finances are being audited and that may cause him more trouble going forward), let taxpayers not spend the $7 million, and let us all reboot and try again in 2014.

Councillor Paul Ainslie quickly weighed in with a similar position on Twitter in response to this column:

@robedits Appointment...although it could be a long road before City Council has to make that decision

“Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it,” was the comment of Toronto city councillor Doug Ford when he was asked to respond to a report that he would run for office in the event of a by-election to replace his beleaguered brother Rob Ford.

First draft of front page

The front page Toronto Star print edition headline “Fords plotting to keep office” was posted to Twitter by editor-in-chief Michael Cooke after it was laid out Tuesday night.

But by the time the edition went to press early Wednesday morning, “plotting” was changed to the slightly less conspiratorial “planning.”

Doug didn’t deny the scoop when he was reached by sympathetic talk show host Jerry Agar of Newstalk 1010 — the station that the Ford Bros. take over for two hours on Sunday afternoons.

There continues to be a lack of complete clarity over the Monday ruling from Justice Charles Hackland that ordered Rob to step down within two weeks. Doug has countered the interpretation of the city solicitor that Rob would need to stay on the municipal sidelines until at least 2014 if he ends up out of legal options to stick around Toronto City Hall.

A provincial election, though, would give a potentially unemployed mayor something to focus on next year.

Doug Ford, Sr. was an Etobicoke MPP from 1995 to 1999 — while he was squeezed out of the running amidst a riding redistribution, a political dynasty narrative has gained steam. Which means one brother or another will almost certainly cruise into a seat at Queen’s Park.

The fact that Toronto mayor Rob Ford will be out of a job in less than two weeks — notwithstanding an appeal — has revived debate over two words Canadians more frequently hear in association with the omnibus crime bill in Ottawa.

The “mandatory minimum” sentence necessitated stripping Ford of his duties after he was found to have violated Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Once that was determined by Justice Charles Hackland, the law left no other choice but to implement the penalty that was on the books, no matter how sympathetic he was to the mayor’s charitable intentions.

Warnings that mandatory minimums don’t work — especially in light of how crowded the American penal system has become with drug offenders — were rebuffed by Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson earlier this year.

Nicholson affirmed in February that the policy represented “a Canadian solution to Canadian issues and we make no apology for that.”

After that statment, a judge in Oshawa, Ont. ignored the mandatory minimum three-year sentence for a weapons-related offense in the case of a 21-year-old who told an undercover officer that he could sell him a gun — to go along with a purchase of crack cocaine — but in which he lied through his teeth.

Stiffer sentences for drug offenses, which came into effect this month, are expected to overwhelm the court system. And cost more money, too.

But that’s with criminals. They’re different than politicians. Commentators from both sides of the political fence have expressed their displeasure with the municipal government law that ultimately put Ford’s mayoralty on the endangered species list. Of course, their acceptance of its validity varies according to whether they want to see him punted from office or not.

The greatest motivation for keeping the Conflict of Interest Act intact could be to ensure that no one else is tempted to go through the same roundabout efforts to save paying back $3,150 in charitable donations as Ford did.

But, after watching this saga unfold, who would have the energy to think about it?

So, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been given the boot from office because an opportunistic citizen hired a smart and politically savvy lawyer who found a club of an arcane statute with which to tie the hands of a judge who was willing to play ball.

That’s the short and dirty version of the bombshell that has dropped.

There was “absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain” on Ford’s part, Ontario Superior Court Judge Charles Hackland wrote in a decision released Monday.

In other words, this isn’t analogous to the cases involving other Canadian mayors where the allegations are about corruption or the countenancing of corruption — Joe Fontana, of London, Ont., who is facing fraud charges, and refuses to step down; Laval’s Gilles Vaillancourt, who quit earlier this month after a witness at Quebec’s corruption inquiry testified the mayor took kickbacks on all construction contracts; Montreal’s Gerald Tremblay, who resigned Nov. 6 amid accusations he had turned a blind eye to the corruption that was purportedly all around him.

To quote Judge Hackland again: Mayor Ford’s case, by comparison, “involved a modest amount of money which he endeavoured to raise for a legitimate charity [his football foundation], which is administered at arm’s length through the Community Foundation of Toronto.”

Furthermore, as the judge also noted, when Ford insisted on speaking to the original motion at city council — the integrity commissioner Janet Leiper had suggested council ask him to repay the $3,150 given to the foundation by donors he’d approached using city letterhead — he was trying to clear the air “in circumstances where many informed commentators would contend that the principles of procedural fairness…should have allowed him to speak (although not to vote).”

The Mayor did, notoriously, vote for a motion that rescinded the order to repay.

As the judge said, his speaking and voting “was far from the most serious breach,” but removal is mandatory unless the breach was inadvertent or by reason of an error in judgment.

Ford’s own testimony at trial made it clear it wasn’t inadvertent (he said he came to that meeting with the intention of speaking, on principle if you like) or an error in judgment (or that if it was, it was his fault for either not knowing or ignoring the rules). Besides, the judge said, Ford showed “a stubborn sense of entitlement [concerning his football foundation] and a dismissive and confrontational attitude” to the integrity boss and council’s code of conduct.

The mandatory removal required — under Section 10.1 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act — makes the statute an ass, as the judge himself acknowledged.

It “is a very blunt instrument and has attracted justified criticism and calls for legislative reform,” the judge said.

He quoted no less than David Mullan, a professor in administrative law and Toronto’s first integrity commissioner, who six years ago told city council that “it is simply Byzantine to have a regime under which the only way of dealing legally with conflict of interest in a municipal setting is by way of an elector making an application to a judge and where the principal and mandatory penalty…is the sledgehammer of an order that the member’s office is vacated.”

Had Judge Hackland been looking for an out — to address what he pretty plainly agrees is a bad law — his best bet was Section 4 (k) of the statute, which says that removal doesn’t apply if the pecuniary interest “is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.”

But the judge found that what the Mayor said at that meeting where he shouldn’t even have been speaking revealed “his pecuniary interest…was of significance to him” and the 4 (k) exemption didn’t apply.

What Mr. Ford said was this: “And if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask that I pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone; the money has been spent on football equipment.”

(I’d argue that it’s just as reasonable to interpret that as the sputtering and clumsy protest of a man who was bewildered how doing something good had turned so bad.)

Thus did the judge join Paul Magder (the citizen who complained) and Clay Ruby (Magder’s lawyer) in using an elephant gun of a statute on a flea of a misdemeanor.

In the post-Charter of Rights and Freedoms world that is the modern Canada, citizens have grown accustomed to taking their laws as much from the courts — the Supreme Court and Superior Courts all across the country — as they do from the Parliament. Indeed, it is often celebrated when the courts overturn laws made by the federal government, especially the Stephen Harper government.

On Oct. 25, 2010, 383,501 Torontonians voted for Rob Ford, 93,669 more than voted for the runner up, George Smitherman, and just 1,813 fewer than all of those who voted for third-place finisher Joe Pantalone.

Not a one of them voted for Mr. Magder, Mr. Ruby or Judge Hackland.

Take Our Poll]]>http://o.canada.com/news/local/mayor-fords-removal-arose-from-bad-law-even-judge-agrees/feed1Rob Ford arrives after the verdictchristieblatchfordToronto could have a new mayor next weekhttp://o.canada.com/news/toronto-could-have-a-new-mayor-next-week
http://o.canada.com/news/toronto-could-have-a-new-mayor-next-week#commentsFri, 23 Nov 2012 00:10:02 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=155492]]>…

The verdict in Ford’s conflict of interest trial will be revealed at 10 a.m. Monday.

Justice Charles Hackland could potentially decide that Ford has violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and must be removed from office. The decision is expected to be sent out through either fax or email as no courtroom has been booked yet.

Constitutional Lawyer Clayton Ruby brought the case to the Superior Court just over two months ago, claiming that Ford broke the law at a council meeting where he spoke, and then voted, about an item concerning donations to his football charity.

Toronto’s integrity commissioner has already ordered Ford to repay $3,150 worth of donations. Ruby also argues that Ford should have known that politicians must declare any conflict of interest and his ignorance of any rules is no excuse.

Ford’s lawyer, Alan Leczner, argued that the integrity commissioner doesn’t have the authority to hand down this sort of financial penalty in the first place.

So if Ford is forced out of office, his replacement could be named by Council, so long as the new mayor is currently a sitting Councillor. Alternatively, the judge or City Council could order a new election. The system has never been tested since these rules were introduced.

Or, the judge could find that Ford did nothing wrong and allow him to keep his job. That could happen, too.